DOCUMENT RESUME ED 284 310 CS 505 645 AUTHOR Burns, Gary TITLE Historical Development of Television Aesthetics/Television Theory. PUB DATE 4 Apr 85 NOTE 27p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Popular Culture Association (Louisville, KY, Apr41 1985). PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) -- Speeches/Conferenct Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Aesthetic Values; Cultural Influences; Mass Media; *Popular Culture; Technological Advancement; *Television; Television Research; Theories IDENTIFIERS Aesthetic Response; *Television History; Television Role; *Television Theory ABSTRACT Even though television scholar Herbert Zettl singlehandedly created the term "television aesthetics" by proclaiming that TV is an art, television studiesare still excluded from the respectable divisions and disciplines of knowledge. Television is considered the epitome ofmass culture/kitsch, and the very idea of a TV "masterpiece," for example, is improbable. "Television theory" would be a preferable label fora field of study that has been developing in isolated strands since the 1930s,and which can be divided into roughly four stages: (1)through the early 1950s--the main theoretical question was whether TV is itselfan art or merely a "transmission device" for the other arts; (2) early 1950s to early 1960s--the Golden Age of TV proved that its dramatic form can be artistically powerful; (3) early 1960s to early 1970s--TV penetration into American homes reached 99% by the 1970s; and (4) early 1970s to the present--video art and low-cost technology proliferated. Marshall McLuhan noted that most thinkingabout a new medium is done in terms of old media. As television theorydevelops, new concepts of what TV is, how it got to be that way, why it remains that way, and how and why to change it, will be formulated. (Footnotes, a very extensive chronological bibliography ofworks related to television theory, and a comprehensive list of production books and dissertations are appended.) (NNA) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best thatcan be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Impmvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) *his document has been reproduced as ecetved Imm the person or organization e) originating it r-4 0 Minor Changes have been made to improve re\ reproduction quality Points cil vies' of opinions stated in this docu- .4- ment do not necessarily represent &bolsi OpOERI position or policy Historical Development of Television Aesthetics/Television Theory Gary Burns Assistant Professor Department of Speech University of Missouri St. Louis, MO 63121 314-553-548. Popular Culture Association Louisville, 4 April 1985 "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Gary Burns 0 TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." ci BEST COPYAVAILABLE Historical Development of Televistm Aesthetics/Television Theory "If we were to collect all the stud:es and articles printedon the various effects of television, on television as a social institutionor even cultural phenomenon, we would probably have to hire a big truck to haul it allaway. And yet, the writings that are specifically concerned withtelevision aesthetics would 1 probably fit quite comfortably intoa normal-sized briefcase." Strictly speaking, Herbert Zettl is correct in hisstatement quoted above. Nonetheless, his argument is somewhat misleading. As the bibliography at the end of this essay indicates, a collection of theworks relevant to television aesthetics would fillmany library shelves. It would be possible to compile from these works a large anthology"specifically concerned with television aesthetics." In addition, the time is ripe for somebody to write a book or books synthesizing and extending thescattered work on television aesthetics. Of course, no one has yet written sucha book. To summarize the situation, television aesthetics does exist and isin fact fairly well developed, contrary to what the casual reader mightconclude from a hasty reading of Zettl. On the other hand, the subject is not available ina convenient package. Not only is there no comprehensive book "specifically concerned with television aesthetics"--the subject is also unavailablein most university curricula and has not crystallizedas an idea in the minds of many intellectuals. In a way, Zettl has singlehandedly created "televisionaesthetics" by giving a name to his own admirable and prolific work. At the same time Zettl has set humanistic study (in a particular form) apartfrom the more voluminous work of social scientists, journalists,and even critics, thus perpetuating a split actually established by these threegroups of specialists, 3 2 who have seldom asked what television fundamentally is and why itis that. It is primarily Zettl's production emphasis that enables him tomove beyond criticism into theory, a crucial step that forcesmore emphatically than ever before the issue of television's position among the arts and humanities. Zettl proclaims loudly that TV is an art, which is somethingmore formidable than a medium. If TV is an art (which Zettl establishes in Sight,_ 2 Sound, Motion through his elaborate discussion of elements and techniques), then it does not deserve to occupy a blindspot in thehumanities. Yet a blindspot is exactly where TV has been in the arts and humanitiesas they are defined in intellectual writing, university curricula, libraryclassification systems, foundation funding categories, and popular understanding. Exclusion of TV (particularly as a focal point for theory) from the respectable divisions and disciplines of knowledge has occurred partially because most of what we see on TV seems so trivialor bad, partially because it is so logistically difficult to study television. Access to both thE process and product of television producticn varies with what the researcher can afford and in addition is subject to restriction by the gatekeepers of the entertainment industries. While mere consumption of TV requires little effort, the systematic study of TV can be accomplished only by overcoming logistical problems that are at best annoyances and at worst staggering. Studying the artistic and humanistic aspects of TV requiresan effort that few universities or outside funding agencies have been willingto support, for television as we know it is the epitome ofmass culture/kitsch, which, especially in its extreme form, is criticized butseldom "appreciated" as high culture is. Many universities offer courses in TV criticism, usually with a sociological flavor, but not in TV appreciation. "Appreciation" is an overly polite term, but that is essentially what happens inmost film courses, 4 3 tollowidg "masterpi,!:e" models previouslyestablished for art, literature,music, 3 and theatre. The idea of a TV "masterpiece,' by itsvery improbability, raises some of the most interesting quesvionsabout TV: Generally, what is a masterpiece? Specifically, what are the masterpieces?Who says so?Given the existence of masterpieces, who are the masters? How would one go about makinga masterpiece? It these questions seem prPposterous, it is a result (and cause) of thefact that we do not "appreciate" television,even though Americans collectively spend more time watching TV than they spendon any other activity except sleepih?. TV is the main art form ln the livesof many Americans, yet because the content is so bad and the TV setso familiar, few people recognize TV as art, even in its fine moments. But to say that TV is an art is only tosay that it can be used by skilled people to imitateor represent the world, to express ideas and feelings, to create pleasing sights and sounds, and to present existing works ofart in new waYs. How these processes work is,or at least should be, the subject of television aesthetics. "Television aesthetics" is actuallyan unfortunate term since it couples a specific medium witha branch of philosophy devoted to the study of the general nature ofart and beauty. In the literature on film and television, "aesthetics" is commonly usedto describe inquiry that focuses on content, technique, and quality (e.g. masterpieces),and which largely ignores the social and cultural context in which art is produced andconsumed. Philosophers generally treat questionsof context in their writingson aesthetics, but many media scholars use "television" and "film"as modifiers in front of "aesthetics," thus focusing attentionon the "distinctive features of the medium," a phrase which occurs over and over in thetelevision literature especially. The "distinctive featureS" come tobe,%nderstood as natural rather than humanly 5 4 determined--from technical standards (aspect ratio, 525 line scanning, NTSC color, small image size, live transmission) to supposed consequences in content (TV as close-up medium, intimate medium, spontaneous medium).As these prescriptions are challenged from time to time, aesthetics gainsa reputation 4 as a naive approach, steeped in unacknowledged ideology. Fortunately the term "television aesthetics" has caughton only to a limited extent (with Zettl its major proponent). The chief competitor is "television studies," which seems to be the favoriteamong the many film scholars who have recently become interested in television. A better term would be "television theory." This resembles "film theory," a well established construct (along